On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 20:51 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 30 novembre 2006 Ã 13:45 -0500, Jesse Keating a Ãcrit :
> > On Thursday 30 November 2006 12:29, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > I would say that apt and smart's UI would not suffer from a
> > > migration to comps provided that comps lists all the packages in the
> > > repository.
> > Why do all packages have to be listed in comps? The grouping metadata can
> > list packages being in some groups, and then if a package isn't in any
> > group,
> > the tool (apt/smart) could represent that as 'Ungrouped' or however you
> > want
> > to phrase it.
> Why to you want to impose the policy of one user of this file (anaconda)
> on others ?
Because the file exists to provide the metainformation needed for a
specific UI -- that used by anaconda and pirut.
> Defining groups for anaconda use and lumping everything else in an
> anaconda-does-not-care limbo is not the answer.
It's not anaconda doesn't care, it's that *USERS* don't care. There
definitely are groups that _are_ end-user interesting that aren't
present. And when those come up, it's easy. But this crusade to list
every package in comps is explicitly _not_ what comps was ever intended
> The answer is to categorise everything, and let apps define the
> filtering they want separately.
And what provides the information as to whether something should be
filtered? Hard-coded in anaconda? That goes great with doing
fedora-extras-list mailing list